| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 09:25:49
|
(Later edit: Mods: If you think this is better placed in the "D&D Core Rules" section, feel free to move it; there's nothing really Realms-specific here, because Bane and Asmodeus are both in the PHB 4E.)
For those who (like me) dislike the word "neutral" and find the 4E alignment system too simplistic, here's what I cooked up (well, reheated; I didn't change much from the pre-4E system) for my games: There are still nine alignments, but the names are simplified a bit.
Lawful Good
Lawful (or "Pure Lawful" or something similar, if you like)
Lawful Evil
Good (or "Absolute Good" or something similar, if you like)
Unaligned
Evil (or "Absolute Evil" or something similar, if you like)
Chaotic Good
Chaotic (or "Pure Chaotic" or something similar, if you like)
Chaotic Evil
Just a thought... I've suffered from a growing dislike of the word "neutral" ever since reading a Palladium RPG discussion of alignment. I didn't care much for their system, but I liked their argument against "neutrality." 
Edit: clarified language in first paragraph.
|
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 08 Oct 2008 21:54:46
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 13:30:35
|
| I like this. I think it makes more sense than both of the other systems. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 14:14:16
|
| I've always looked at the neutral alignments as simply being somewhere between the lawful and chaotic ones. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 14:19:20
|
I have to admit, I like (or at least don't mind) the word "neutral".
I actually like the 4E alignment system too, although I would have gone all the way and just had "good", "unaligned", and "evil". |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 15:31:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I like (or at least don't mind) the word "neutral".
I actually like the 4E alignment system too, although I would have gone all the way and just had "good", "unaligned", and "evil".
I personally like the distinctions between different types of Good and Evil (especially the extremes between LG and CG & LE and CE where the Neutrality is concerned on the Law vs Chaos axis) |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 15:50:22
|
Excepting true neutral, I've always run my alignments as Lawful Good, Lawful, Lawful Evil. If you think about it, the "neutral" in alignments LN, CN, NG, NE is kind of just a placeholder to fit the whole 2-letter alignment scheme. What's the difference between someone who is Neutral Good and someone who is just Good? Both have a positive moral outlook, and neither especially places any value on the ideals of law or chaos. Good = Neutral Good, Lawful = Lawful Neutral and so on.
Doing away with the word neutral altogether to the point of renaming the center alignment seems to go a bit farther than is necessary... as in, people have complained about the neutral alignments enough that "let's just purge the damned word altogether so no one has any reason to complain."
What's the difference between an unaligned character and a neutral character?
Let's say we have a druid who still holds to that old school "balance" outlook and tries to make sure that no one outlook becomes too prevalent over another. What would such a character be? Neutral in older editions, unaligned in 4e. Now, what about a character that doesn't care one bit about good or evil, law or chaos... what's his alignment? Neutral in old editions, unaligned in 4e.
Neutral can be an alignment view if you're motivated by balance, but I've always treated it as the default "not interested in alignment" alignment. That's why things of animal intelligence or even no intelligence (such as constructs) have a neutral alignment.
I think Neutrality's biggest problem is that too much effort went into defining it in the past. Its all well and good for those "balance" nuts who are strongly motivated to not work actively in favor of any moral or ethical perspective... but it's always been the everyman alignment to me.
Changing the name of it to "unaligned" doesn't change anything for me... except "neutral" sounds less cumbersome. You know, I guess they really could have just renamed the middle alignment to Bob and it worked out just fine for everyone. It would still be eliminating the word "neutral" for all the people that are sick of it, it would cut down on syllables for me, and it would give it just a little bit of pizazz that neutrality was always lacking.
Paladin: "I am lawful good champion of Tyr. I am known as Sir Rightsthewrongs!"
Druid: "Hi. I'm bob... my name's Bob."
Paladin: "Bob the Druid? So, you're bob? Hmmm. Well, my mother and father were bob, too. I think we can work together, Bob... for now." |
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 16:56:55
|
| The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 18:46:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning.
That likely would have been easier. I still wouldn't have liked it, myself, but it's a better alternative than what WotC did. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 18:52:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning.
I like that too, actually. I mean, the original D&D game had Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic as alignments, completely disregarding good and evil (or equating them with law and chaos, much as the 4E system does); I always felt that the Good-Evil axis was somewhat more important than the Law-Chaos axis, but being something of a free thinker (as you've seen from my past posts), I've always believed that "Law" and "Good" should not always be equated... in fact, my basic 4E alignment system would emphasize the evils of Tyranny:
Chaotic Good - Good - Unaligned - Evil - Lawful Evil
After all, Asmodeus and Bane are the two nastiest deities in 4E, imho... and Shar was never chaotic anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
What's the difference between an unaligned character and a neutral character?
Let's say we have a druid who still holds to that old school "balance" outlook and tries to make sure that no one outlook becomes too prevalent over another. What would such a character be? Neutral in older editions, unaligned in 4e. Now, what about a character that doesn't care one bit about good or evil, law or chaos... what's his alignment? Neutral in old editions, unaligned in 4e.
Nerfed: I see your point, I (obviously) agree with your "placeholder" view, and I was tempted to just eradicate the central alignment too. My argument for keeping it was actually based on the aforementioned Palladium discussion; a lot of people in the world aren't really evil, but do what is necessary to get by, avoiding discomfort to others when possible. That's Palladium's "selfish" alignment group. As you point out, though, there are actually two versions of "neutral" in the old system. Palladium's argument is that it's not possible to do anything without tending toward one side or the other on one axis or another, and this may be why the word "neutral" to me always had connotations of "not going anywhere" (automotive terminology), even when considering the old 1E druid's "maintenance of the balance" obsession, which is insanity-inducing in the holder of the alignment. Since you brought up the distinction, I would keep "Neutral" around for the "keeper of the balance" worldview for those who want to play obsessive-compulsive characters.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I like (or at least don't mind) the word "neutral".
I actually like the 4E alignment system too, although I would have gone all the way and just had "good", "unaligned", and "evil".
Rinona: I was tempted to do the same thing you describe, as mentioned in my response to KEJ above. The good-evil dichotomy has always been the one most central to D&D, and this is why the original "Mentzer D&D" alignment system made no sense to me with no mention of good or evil.
Anyway, I'm impressed with the discussion that's been provoked, and hopefully it continues a while longer. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 19:08:49
|
While I see nothing wrong with Jakk's system, all he did was simply take the word 'neutral' out of the old system.
In other words, nothing was changed except some verbiage.
While I understand your problems with 'neutral' really being 'neutral', if you just take 4e's 'unaligned' concept and paste it over the old (1e/2e/3e) system's 'neutral', it works out the same as yours.
I think 'Neutral' could be a seperate alignment from 'unaligned', though - instead of being as self-serving as unaligned, you could be more for maintaining "the Balance", like a druid.
Although, that in itself could just be a sub-category under 'unaligned' (more a matter of beliefs then true alignment). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Oct 2008 22:06:39 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 21:48:53
|
Exactly right, Markustay. True, my changes are more linguistic/cosmetic than anything else, but I prefer the terminology of 4E applied to the 3x3 grid of 1E-3.5. I see no reason to retain the "neutral" terminology now that druids (as of 3E) are less alignment-based and more nature-ethos-based, as they should have been initially. While it is true that nature is indifferent to ethics and morals, living as an intelligent being in such a way as to "maintain the balance" is difficult at best. I agree that the old "neutral" alignment should have been split into the two different views, as you suggest, but if we remove the "balance" option as "that way madness lies" I think it suits the post-1E game (and definitely the post-2E game) much better. I'll be running all of these variants by my group to discuss (probably via email after our next session on Friday).
If anyone has any other thoughts, feel free to post; I heard that the 3E development team had debated getting rid of alignment altogether, and I suspect that the 4E team went through a similar discussion... I mean, they went halfway, and they also went halfway to making D&D a classless system as well; I suspect I'd be more enthusiastic if they had actually done so, instead of keeping all the classes (the barbarian, bard, and druid are forthcoming, I hear, and the sorcerer is redundant with the new system of magic that I'm not exactly thrilled with) and adding two new ones. After all, they simplified the game in every other respect, many of which I dislike. Something tells me that after the release of the PHB III and DMG II for 4E, we'll be able to use the 4E books to play 3.5 core. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 08 Oct 2008 21:49:17 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 22:24:46
|
I wasn't very happy with WotC's Sorceror, since he seemed to just be a compromise for people who didn't like Vancian Magic. Paizo went to great strides to re-flavor the 3e Sorceror into something special with Bloodlines, and if WotC does something similar, there is hope for the "poor man's Wizard".
This thread gave me an excellent idea for a new type of organization. Having read Sentinelspire last week, I got the idea that some Druids are a little too 'extreme' even for Silvanus. Druids ARE supposed to be True Neutral (working toward the balance), but what if there was a super-secret organizastion within the organization that 'policed' their own?
Enter the Ja'seil Verde - "Keepers of the Green". This group is so secretive no non-druid has ever heard of it, and even amongst the Druids it is just a whispered tale, only half-believed and told to Druidic aspirants to keep them in-line. There job is to 'eliminate' any Druids that lean too far toward Good or Evil, or those who use methods that are a bit too extreme.
Watcha think? (I know its a bit off-topic, but..) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Oct 2008 22:25:26 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 23:05:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
I personally like the distinctions between different types of Good and Evil (especially the extremes between LG and CG & LE and CE where the Neutrality is concerned on the Law vs Chaos axis)
I like them too, but if the goal was to streamline the system, it would have made more sense to ditch the law/chaos axis altogether instead of having just LG and CE without their traditional counterparts. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2008 : 23:12:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Rinona: I was tempted to do the same thing you describe, as mentioned in my response to KEJ above. The good-evil dichotomy has always been the one most central to D&D, and this is why the original "Mentzer D&D" alignment system made no sense to me with no mention of good or evil.
Anyway, I'm impressed with the discussion that's been provoked, and hopefully it continues a while longer.
Me too. Anyway, I agree with you that law and chaos shouldn't be equated with good and evil, respectively. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 01:42:35
|
I've never had much problem with the "neutral" terminology, and though I never made it explicit, I did have two version of TN: the "I just don't care, let me get on with my life in peace" types, and the "holding the Balance" druid/Harper types. I also never had a problem with someone trying to balance all things, though I think someone doing that would actually swing around the alignment wheel, depending on what the situation called for. But maybe that's because I read Castles Forlorn early on, and internalised the discusion about Forlorn's druids debating how the heck one "maintained the Balance" in a place as evil as Ravenloft.
Regarding the OP's table, I think if you're going to drop neutral from the description, you should chage the order some. Specifically, I don't think (and this applies to 4e as well) it's a good idea to have "Good" and "Specific Good" (or Evil) in the same table. It leads to people asking, "But, isn't "Specific Good" also "Good"?
I would prefer a table more like this:
Good
=> Lawful Good
=> Chaotic Good
Evil
=> Lawful Evil
=> Chaotic Evil
Lawful
Chaotic
Unaligned (Ed Greenwood's "chaotic selfish")
Balance
This makes LG, et al. specializations within their higher ideal. Thus, Bob thinks good is best. Bob could think the best way to promote good is through good laws, or enlightened personal freedom, or he may not care much either way and just stick to good. Keeps the same flavor, but clears up confusion. And keeps the Great Wheel intact (sorry, pet peeve of mine).
Finally, I want to say that one thing I've always liked about alignments is their conveniance. I've played other systems without alignment, and I understand the arguments against it, but for me there's nothing like being able to take one quick glance at a character and get an idea of how someone is going to react. Sometimes I don't have time to read the entire character description and puzzle out the nuances. Sometimes I just need a quick idea. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
Edited by - Hoondatha on 10 Oct 2008 01:43:16 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 04:33:11
|
You know, I was thinking just using the old system (or Jakks), and then add 'True Neutral' right before 'Unaligned' (one being self-serving, and the other being about the 'greater good'-ie,balance)
Then I thought more about it, and decided a Druid should be Chaotic Lawful. 
He adheres to a strict code of chaos.
But then I figure we needed an 'Evil Good' to round out all the alignments, and that was a tough one...
And then I remembered the Jehovah Witnesses that like to knock on my door early Sunday mornings...  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 06:02:33
|
I like it! It makes so much more sense than the 4E system...
[edit]
However...
In your examples, "Chaotic Lawful" is an in-game alignment, while "Evil Good" is a RW alignment. We need an in-game example of "Evil Good"...
Oh... how about Tyr's actions in slaying Helm over Tymora? No, that's Lawful Stupid. We could go with Khelben's dealings with Fzoul that precipitated the Harper Schism... but that's more Chaotic Omniscient. (Funny how those two are exact opposites, eh?) Hrm... "Evil Good"... oh! I know... the Eldreth Veluuthra; they're acting for the greater good of elvenkind, but in a decidedly evil manner from the perspective of non-elves and elves who like to get along with other non-evil races. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 10 Oct 2008 06:38:17 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 06:15:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I wasn't very happy with WotC's Sorceror, since he seemed to just be a compromise for people who didn't like Vancian Magic. Paizo went to great strides to re-flavor the 3e Sorceror into something special with Bloodlines, and if WotC does something similar, there is hope for the "poor man's Wizard".
This thread gave me an excellent idea for a new type of organization. Having read Sentinelspire last week, I got the idea that some Druids are a little too 'extreme' even for Silvanus. Druids ARE supposed to be True Neutral (working toward the balance), but what if there was a super-secret organizastion within the organization that 'policed' their own?
Enter the Ja'seil Verde - "Keepers of the Green". This group is so secretive no non-druid has ever heard of it, and even amongst the Druids it is just a whispered tale, only half-believed and told to Druidic aspirants to keep them in-line. There job is to 'eliminate' any Druids that lean too far toward Good or Evil, or those who use methods that are a bit too extreme.
Watcha think? (I know its a bit off-topic, but..)
Very interesting... and not far off-topic; you can't talk about alignment in D&D without mentioning at least one of bards, druids, and/or paladins. I may introduce such an order, or one much like it, into my own campaign.
On a related off-topic note: Non-LG paladins: I know they're part of the 4E core rules, and were introduced in UA 3.5, but we've been using them in our campaigns since 2E first appeared. The way we have always handled paladins is, any deity with an organized hierarchy to their clergy can have paladins, and paladins must have the same specific alignment as their patron deity (whereas clerics can be one step removed in one or both directions). Chaotic deities are less likely to have paladins, but it's not impossible... elven paladins of Corellon Larethian are way cool. Oh, and for racial deities, you must be a member of the race to be a paladin of that deity, with the exceptions of Tiamat and Bahamut. Half-elves and half-orcs can be paladins of elven and orcish deities respectively. Paladins of Sune can be rather... persuasive... when they want something.
[/digression] |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 07:07:58
|
I have always had each alignment (and almost every large religion) have 'Paladins', except I didn't call them that. There was a great 3e article in Dragon that had 'alternative Paladins', and thats pretty much what I always envisioned.
I figure each (major) religion has its 'Holy Warriors', even the evil ones. 'Paladin' just happens to be the name of the Lawful Good variety.
I don't mind non-LG Paladins, but I DO take exception to them being called Paladins. 
As for the name of that order - I was looking for something reminiscent of the Jesuit Order in Catholicism (supposedly the 'Church Assassins').
Anyhow, as for the alignment - I can think of plenty of examples of 'Evil Good'. In fact, Lawful-Neutral can easily fall into that category. For instance -
In Marvel Comics, Latveria in the only country in the world with a 0% crime rate! Thats GOOD, right?
You see, their leader immediatekly KILLS anyone who commits a crime, even littering. IMHO, Dr.Doom is the perfect example of 'Evil Good'. He wants to the world to be 'perfect', and he knows only he can accomplish that goal. No Crime, No poverty, No hunger, No disease, No Drug or alcohal addiction, etc, etc...
And of course, NO free will.
Think about it - if the world was a paradise, and everything perfect, then we would have nothing to compare it to. Thats Evil Good. Ergo, its possble to be 'SO good' that you're actually commiting a greater evil.
Its a little hard to grasp, but if you've ever met someone in RL that was so nice they made you sick, you'd know what I mean. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Oct 2008 07:08:25 |
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 08:05:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I figure each (major) religion has its 'Holy Warriors', even the evil ones. 'Paladin' just happens to be the name of the Lawful Good variety.
I don't mind non-LG Paladins, but I DO take exception to them being called Paladins.
Well you are right about Paladins being "Holy Warriors" and that non-LG ones might be better off not being called Paladins. I think for many nature deities the holy warrior equivalent is ranger for example and there might be other classes suited for other deities. Some gods - mainly the peaceful ones - probably dont have such a thing as a holy warrior (I cant imagine Sune having one for example).
The title Paladin has a special ring to it though and it really describes the term "Holy Warrior", i.e. something really "good" (and an evil holy warrior is "good") for the followers of that faith. So I think there should be no absolute NO on calling holy warriors of different alignments Paladins as well. A real life example of an evil Paladin: Hermann Goering, the "number two Nazi", he was called "first Paladin of the Reich". So using exactly this title might be good for propaganda, something which many faiths - primarily the prominent ones - use.
Is there any lore of an "Evil Paladin" who was really called Paladin though? I cant remember any, so its really a choice the DM has to make. |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 16:01:46
|
I agree with the idea that any church is going to have its holy warriors.
And I don't have any problem with calling them paladins. Of course, here my thinking is once more influenced by Weis and Hickman's Rose of the Prophet trilogy. In the second book, The Paladin of the Night, the Black Paladins of the god Zhakrin are introduced. The main one in the trilogy was Auda ibn Jad. ibn Jad could seem friendly and gregarious when needed, and was quite charismatic. At the same time, he had no problems doing things like killing a slave in front of another to keep a secret quiet and intimidate the other slave, or having his attendants murder a dozen people and drain all of their blood. He also casually fed a bunch of slaves to some ghoul-like creatures, and didn't even pay attention as the slaves were eaten alive.
But then he got home, back to the Black Paladin's castle. There, he was happy to be home and amongst his brethren. He wept when he found out his blood-brother had been killed, and swore a blood-oath against the man responsible for it. Later, he took up arms against his own people, defending his new blood-brother.
Oh, and the Black Paladins had captured a White Knight of Evren, Zhakrin's main enemy and the main goddess of good. They tortured him until he converted, becoming a willing servant of Zhakrin. This was a process they used often, and it was called the Rebirth, because they entered Zhakrin's service the same way then entered the world: naked and bloody.
So the Black Paladins were a really interesting bunch. Because they were so interesting, it makes me accept the idea of evil paladins quite readily.
For an example a bit closer to home, look at Krynn's Knights of Takhisis. Honor, courage, loyalty, and service to evil. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 20:46:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, as for the alignment - I can think of plenty of examples of 'Evil Good'. In fact, Lawful-Neutral can easily fall into that category. For instance -
In Marvel Comics, Latveria in the only country in the world with a 0% crime rate! Thats GOOD, right?
You see, their leader immediatekly KILLS anyone who commits a crime, even littering. IMHO, Dr.Doom is the perfect example of 'Evil Good'. He wants to the world to be 'perfect', and he knows only he can accomplish that goal. No Crime, No poverty, No hunger, No disease, No Drug or alcohal addiction, etc, etc...
And of course, NO free will.
Think about it - if the world was a paradise, and everything perfect, then we would have nothing to compare it to. Thats Evil Good. Ergo, its possble to be 'SO good' that you're actually commiting a greater evil.
Its a little hard to grasp, but if you've ever met someone in RL that was so nice they made you sick, you'd know what I mean.
True enough. If evil did not exist, neither would good, because the concepts would be meaningless. Given that argument, 4E was the perfect time for Wizbro to do away with alignment altogether... or not. I like alignment as a game mechanic; I just don't like the watered-down, tunnel-vision 4E version of it, for reasons already stated. Anyway, I have new software to play with, so I'm outta here for a bit. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 21:22:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning.
I agree -- that would have been a far more logical and elegant approach, considering their design goals. Not to mention that I actually like your suggestion a lot (exalted and vile as ends of the "spectrum" is a great idea, especially as the concepts were used in 3E! ). |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2008 : 03:41:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning.
I agree -- that would have been a far more logical and elegant approach, considering their design goals. Not to mention that I actually like your suggestion a lot (exalted and vile as ends of the "spectrum" is a great idea, especially as the concepts were used in 3E! ).
One of the things I don't like about the new alignment system is that, for example, Chaotic Evil has to serve two functions, both as "Really Evil" and "the Old Chaotic Evil Too."
Evil has to serve the function of "Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and also people that aren't THAT evil but are selfish and ruthless enough to harm others to benefit themselves."
So, because Chaotic Evil is multi-tasked, and because there are some vestiges of the old CE in it, Devils, for example, are Evil, but Hill giants are Chaotic evil.
Which essentially means that hill giants are more depraved and dedicated to evil for the sake of doing evil and reveling in it than Devils are. That strikes me as really, really wrong.
This means that Devils are on the same "plane" of evil as, say, the mercenary that has no problem killing women and children when he's hired to raid an opposing lord's lands, but is still kind to his own family and even to women and children he's not hired to kill.
On the other hand, if "Really Evil" were called Vile, no one, not even people that know old alignments, would bat an eyelash at Demons and Devil both being listed as "Vile." |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 23:10:03
|
| So we need two more - X-treme Evil and X-treme Good. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 23:22:45
|
| Only if you slap a big red Marvel on the FRCG's cover where the FR logo went missing... |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Darius Talynth
Acolyte
Canada
21 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2008 : 00:42:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The way they ended up describing alignments, I think they really should have went with something like "Exalted-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Vile" instead of the confusion of keeping LG and CE in the game, but tweaking their meaning.
Nicely done. I think this would have been a very good way to present the alignments.
Up until your suggestion I have had this concept in mind and it takes the 9 alignments down to 6.
Lawful Good
Good - merges NG and CG
Lawful - old LN
Unaligned - absorbs N and CN
Evil - combines CE and NE
Lawful Evil
I think the lawful component of an alignment is more easy to conceptualize than it is to do so with neutral or chaotic. I think unaligned is a good way to describe and combine N and CN. Can anyone really tell me the difference between NG and CG? I can sort it out but it isn't a meaningful difference? just combine and call it "good". Same for CE and NE, they are evil. Now CE as total destructive bent, might is right do whatever I want no matter who gets hurt is an easy concept to get, but just call it evil but "Vile" is a good alternative.
As for LG. It needs to stay and mainly for paladins. I don't think there should be paladins as a PC class who are not LG. LG is the hardest alignment to play and thus can serve as a game balancing restriction for giving paladin characters their extra powers. Letting a paladin be CG or NG in pre 4E doesn't balance the characters abilities ( although a 3/3,5 pally is much weaker than one in 1e or 2e.) since there is no real restriction to following those alignments.
My last comments are on the True Neutral adherents to the Balance. I actually think that attempting to maintain the "Balance" in the cosmos is actually a rather Lawful pursuit, definitely the desire to maintain the natural order and everything having a check in balance may place you in a Neutral position, but the desire and goal and means to achieve and maintain that are a Lawful pursuit.
ok i've lost my train of thought and have blabbered enough.
And I'd be OK with Rin's Good, Evil, Neutral as well. Paladins would have to be Good and just be given their code as part of the class description.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2008 : 01:43:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Can anyone really tell me the difference between NG and CG? I can sort it out but it isn't a meaningful difference? just combine and call it "good".
Well, yeah... To simplify it somewhat:
With Chaotic alignments, nothing is more important than the individual -- CG means nothing is more important than any given individual having total freedom, and CE means nothing is more important than the individual who is CE.
Lawful alignments say nothing is more important than the group. Usually, it's the old line about the needs of the many exceeding the needs of the few.
Neutral alignments say that yeah, the group is important, but so is the individual. They like having both the order and protection inherent in a group structure, but they also like the individual to have some freedom.
To me, at least, there is a meaningful difference between NG and CG, and ditto with CE and NE.
It all comes down to what I've said more than once about alignment in the game: it was never a straitjacket, it was a guideline, and the system was explained more than adequately. The failures of the system weren't in its application or execution, the failures were in how many fans treated the system -- like those who thought CN meant being evil one day and good the next was necessary to "maintain the balance." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Darius Talynth
Acolyte
Canada
21 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2008 : 04:06:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Can anyone really tell me the difference between NG and CG? I can sort it out but it isn't a meaningful difference? just combine and call it "good".
Well, yeah... To simplify it somewhat:
With Chaotic alignments, nothing is more important than the individual -- CG means nothing is more important than any given individual having total freedom, and CE means nothing is more important than the individual who is CE.
Lawful alignments say nothing is more important than the group. Usually, it's the old line about the needs of the many exceeding the needs of the few.
Neutral alignments say that yeah, the group is important, but so is the individual. They like having both the order and protection inherent in a group structure, but they also like the individual to have some freedom.
To me, at least, there is a meaningful difference between NG and CG, and ditto with CE and NE.
It all comes down to what I've said more than once about alignment in the game: it was never a straitjacket, it was a guideline, and the system was explained more than adequately. The failures of the system weren't in its application or execution, the failures were in how many fans treated the system -- like those who thought CN meant being evil one day and good the next was necessary to "maintain the balance."
Thanks Wooly.
I forgot about this thread. I do understand alignment and the ideas of the straight jacket versus a looser garment .. such as a poncho :)
My point about comparing NG to CG is that in the course of gameplay it is kind of hard to tell them apart unless specifically getting deep into alignment disucssions. Hence why i don`t have a problem just grouping them into good.
It is interesting to discuss the idea that chaotic is about the individual, which I agree with. But it isn`t so much about freedom as it is about freedom from any or all structures.
I think it is also difficult to look at alignment and their application in a medieval fantasy world when drawing upon our modern culture and views. I have had people argue with me that the US is a "chaotic" nation because of all of the focus on the individual. I argue that the US and the protections inherent to its laws and defining the "rights" is clearly a Lawful society and a LG one, as are most nations. Difference is you have many Chaotic individuals living within these socities, but they have the freedom to be "chaotic" so long as their actions remain within the law ha ha
Alignment is always a great discussion and it is hard to agree on some things. We can agree that alignment is one of the things that makes D&D the game that it is, discussions, arguments, and all. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
4E Alignment Variant System
